Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad comes visiting New Delhi on Tuesday. Since the last visit by an Iranian president in 2003, the suspected efforts to acquire nuclear weapon by Tehran has become a bone of contention between the two countries. Iran formally denies that it has any ambition to become a nuclear weapons power. At the same time it asserts its right under Article IV of the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) to develop uranium enrichment technology for peaceful purposes.

Iran's right to acquire this technology cannot be denied. What the non-proliferation community is questioning is why Iran needs this technology. For well over a decade Iran did not declare its attempt to develop the enrichment technology to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It came out into the open as a result of disclosures by some expatriates. Though the IAEA is of the view that Iranian cooperation has improved of late, Tehran has still not made a complete disclosure to enable the IAEA to certify that Iran has no clandestine military programme.

In the US, a National Intelligence Estimate, involving all intelligence agencies, said last year that Iran had suspended its weapons programme in the fall of 2003. This coincided with the interception of BBC China, the ship carrying centrifuge equipment to Libya from Pakistan's A Q Khan. Despite this assessment, the US and Western European countries are demanding that Iran should suspend its uranium enrichment activity under verification.

The Iranians have responded by not only refusing to suspend the enrichment programme, but also by announcing an increase of the enrichment programme even while insisting that it has no intention to acquire nuclear weapons.

There has been speculation in the western media about the possibility of America carrying out massive air attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. The Iranian threat is taken so seriously that it has led to NATO deciding on erecting a long-range radar in the Czech Republic and interceptor missiles in Poland in the next few years, even if it means annoying Russia. There are also fears that a successful Iranian nuclear weapons programme will lead to similar responses by Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Already in the wake of Saddam Hussein's downfall, Iran is seen to be a significant Shia power in the Middle East and there are worries about a Shia-Sunni confrontation. The US and Western Europe are under pressure from various Sunni countries not to allow the emergence of a nuclear-armed Shia Iran.

Israel is most worried about Iran acquiring nuclear capability. This is partly because of the anti-Semitic pronouncements of Ahmadinejad and partly due to Israel having been unsuccessful in dealing with attacks by Hizbollah, which is based in Lebanon and is financed, trained and supported by Iran. The fervour of US opposition to Iran's nuclear efforts can be traced to Israeli security concerns and the Jewish lobby's efforts in Washington.

Iran has not yet satisfied the IAEA about its claims of not attempting to develop weapons. Unlike India, Iran voluntarily signed the NPT though the Shah of Iran had serious plans to develop nuclear weapons. Iran continues to be a member of the NPT and yet had a clandestine nuclear programme supported by A Q Khan and his proliferation network. Therefore, India voted for the IAEA resolution in 2006 and 2007 when the director general of IAEA - who is no western stooge - declared that Iranian cooperation had not been adequate to enable him to clear Iran. That was a fair and objective vote.

But India cannot support any western effort to use coercion, especially military efforts, against Iran. The US and the West, instead of attempting to downgrade the role of nuclear weapons in international strategy, have imprudently embarked on a programme of heightening the importance of nuclear arms. This has increased the pressure on Iran to acquire nuclear weapons capability.

After Pyongyang conducted a nuclear test, the US started negotiating with North Korea. The way in which the US and NATO are panicking about a possible Iranian nuclear attack has persuaded the Iranians that nuclear weapons are the sole means of dealing effectively with the West's bullying. The Iranians are also encouraged by the inability and unwillingness of European nations to stop proliferation by their own nuclear industry to Iran.

They have seen how lightly Pakistan and A Q Khan got away with their worldwide proliferation, including to Iran.

Iran must be stopped from going nuclear. There are no two opinions on that. India has publicly demonstrated its commitment to a non-proliferation regime by voting for the IAEA resolution and seizing nuclear-grade graphite in transit to Iran. But the US and the western powers appear to think that bluster and coercion will compel Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment programme even as their industries continue to support the Iranian nuclear effort.

The western powers have not demonstrated to the world that they have the will to stop proliferation support from their industries. If only they could punish industries, which have been engaging in proliferation for years, Iran would realise the futility of pursuing its enrichment programme. While India should advise Iran to abide by its NPT obligations it should demand the same of western countries.

(The writer is a strategic affairs analyst.)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/followceleb.cms?alias=

Stay updated on the go with Times of India News App. Click here to download it for your device.

Choose your reason below and click on the Submit button. This will alert our moderators to take action

Name

Reason for reporting:

Foul language

Defamatory

Inciting hatred against a certain community

Out of context/Spam

Others

Your Reason has been Submitted to the admin.

Iran has not yet satisfied the IAEA about its claims of not attempting to develop weapons. Unlike India, Iran voluntarily signed the NPT though the Shah of Iran had serious plans to develop nuclear weapons.